Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mors Syphilitica

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus In number those favoring delete, merge, and keep unmerged were roughly equal. The delete arguments were essentially based on lack of notability. The keep arguments showed evidence (less than a citation though) of media coverage, and of touring, either of which would, if substantiated, support a separate article. There were also claims of notability by association, that is of some members being independently notable, or having been in other, more notable bands. That often implies a merge, although it does not mandate one. There was clearly no consensus here, so the article will be kept by default. Noe that that neither mandates nor precludes a merge. If this is to remain undeleted, better sources should be added promptly. DES ^(talk) 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mors Syphilitica[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was "fails WP:BAND". I tend to agree, although it isn't a speedy A7 candidate. Daniel 07:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a sad day when an article like that even makes it to AFD. Okay, I think I'm going to cry now...waah, waah. Yechiel Man 07:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm struggling to find an ascertation of notability in the article, let alone a source to back it up. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the prod has it. --Haemo 07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Belongs to a notable enough record label, the individual members have articles and seem notable enough, it has an allmusic entry, and it passes any sort of google test with flying colours. If this is to be used as any sort of benchmark then there are thousands of band articles that need purging too. —Xezbeth 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please say how the band passes WP:MUSIC? Ryan Postlethwaite 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well despite that being only a guidline, it easily covers the first criteria on that page. The article isn't sourced, but just following links to the article shows they were featured in Gothic Beauty. Now I know nothing whatsoever about gothic music but its google hit count alone tells me this is notable enough, especially considering the low threshold thats been established here already. —Xezbeth 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Google test is not a valid argument in this context, and neither is the allmusic entry, nor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The possible claim to notability they might have is #6 in WP:MUSIC: If Lisa Hammer and/or Doc Hammer are notable independent of the band, then the band would be notable as well (although one might to consider a merger). --B. Wolterding 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to their label page, they have three albums, and Projekt is big enough where they advertise in Rolling Stone and do distribute material to chains like Borders and Hot Topic. As far as gothic music goes, Projekt is a big name, so I think that the band meets the BAND notability criteria. MSJapan 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Projekt" yes, but Sacrum Torch probably no, so two albums would count as self-released. --B. Wolterding 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Projekt was the distributor of the last album - as with the others Sacrum Torch (essentially a self publisher) released it. Bigdaddy1981 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost inclined to say "IAR Keep" on this one, per the above comment; they're only another Projekt release away from meeting WP:MUSIC, but I'm afraid I might be biased just because I like this band. Apparently they went on a US tour a few years back[1] but that forum is the only source I could find for it, which isn't a reliable source, so I'm going to say delete for now as they do not yet meet the notability criteria. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, after reading B. Wolterding's comments, Merge to Lisa Hammer. She already has the Mors Syph discography and a little info about the band on her page, and her and Doc are notable, but in pursuits other than music. Keeping a redirect won't hurt. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zeibura. I'm not sure this whole set isn't a walled garden, but it will make its best case if compacted together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't Merge It's a separate band, it meets notability for WP:BAND, it should stay. Capmango 04:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:BAND do you believe it meets? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4, 5, and 6. Article does need sources though. Capmango 16:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 6 encourages redirection to the notable figure passing through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the originator of the prod; I'll repeat the gist of my reasoning (examine the history and talk page for more). Non-notable band (clearly fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours), first albums all self published, no records with major (even for the genre) labels, the best that can be said is that one album was distributed not released by Projekt. Bigdaddy1981 22:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.